When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the
KJV-Only Doctrine by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
This outline was covered in a lecture of the same topic at the
March 1998 ACAP meeting.
1. The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha. Thus, the
Bible that KJV-Only advocates use omits thousands of verses
originally contained in the KJV (just over 5,700) – far
more than the few verses found in the KJV but omitted in the
NASB, NIV, and other modern translations (such as 1 John 5:7). It
is true that the Apocrypha was widely regarded by Protestants in
1611 not to have the status of full canonicity. However, in the
original 1611 edition no disclaimer was included in this regard
(one was added in later editions). Furthermore, if the Apocrypha
were to be included today, KJV-only advocates would vehemently
object to its inclusion – a sure sign that its inclusion in
the 1611 edition is a significant difference.
2. Even excluding the Apocrypha, the KJV of 1611 differed
slightly from editions of the KJV in common use today.. We
are not referring here to spelling changes and the like, or to
misprints in later, single editions. Usually the changes are
improvements – for example, Matthew 26:36 now properly
reads "Then cometh Jesus," where the original KJV read "Then
cometh Judas." Not all the changes are for the better, though
– for example, Matthew 23:34 in the KJV originally read
"strain out a gnat," which is correct, while subsequent editions
of the KJV to this day have "strain at a gnat." These facts prove
that the extreme KJV-Only belief that even the slightest
deviation from the wording of the KJV results in a false Bible is
completely unrealistic. Please note that we are not claiming that
the differences are vast or troubling from our perspective. We
are simply pointing out that the position that the wording of the
1611 KJV is inviolable logically requires that modern editions of
the KJV not be used.
3. The translators of the KJV did not believe in the KJV-Only
doctrine.
a. They asserted that "the very meanest [i.e., most common or
rude] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of
our profession . . . containeth the word of God, nay, is the word
of God." In other words, any translation of the Bible by
Christian scholars is the word of God.
b. They understood their work as a translation of the original
Hebrew and Greek text, contrary to some extreme KJV-Only
advocates who maintain that the original Hebrew and Greek text is
nonexistent and irrelevant.
c. The KJV originally included marginal notes containing
alternate renderings – making it clear that the wording of
the KJV is not above correction or improvement. They admitted
that there were Hebrew words that appeared only once in the whole
Old Testament whose precise meaning was a matter of conjecture or
debate.
d. They also included variant readings – an extremely
important point that contradicts the KJV-Only doctrine that the
slightest variation from the KJV text results in an unreliable or
false Bible. In at least one instance they placed half a verse in
italics because they were unsure whether it was original (1 John
2:23b).
e. They acknowledged that they exercised liberty in rendering the
same Greek or Hebrew word in a variety of ways for stylistic
purposes, again proving that they did not regard their wording as
the only possible or acceptable rendering of the Bible.
f. They took as a guiding principle the belief that the Bible
should be translated into the "vulgar," or common, language of
the people – implying that as the English language changes
new translations may be needed.
g. They asserted that there was value in having a variety of
translations of the Scriptures.
4. The KJV Bible itself does not teach the KJV-Only
Doctrine.
a. No verse of the KJV indicates that there can be only one
translation in any language. Much less does any verse of the KJV
teach (as some KJV-Only advocates maintain) that there can be
only one language version of the Bible at a time and that the
only Bible in the world today is the KJV.
b. The KJV does clearly teach that God's word is pure and that
God promised to preserve his word. But in no verse does the KJV
indicate that this preservation would occur without variant
readings or renderings. To say that God's word is "pure" is not
the same thing as saying that there can be no variations from one
version of the Bible to another. It is, rather, simply to say
that what God has said is absolutely reliable. But we must still
determine precisely what God said. Did he say what is in the
Apocrypha? Did he say 1 John 5:7? The purity of God's word is an
axiom, but it does not automatically answer these
questions.
c. The KJV does teach that no one should add to or subtract from
God's word. This does place a serious responsibility on the
textual scholar and the translator; but it does not tell us which
English version is correct about disputed verses such as 1 John
5:7.
5. The KJV-Only doctrine contradicts the evidence of the KJV
Bible itself.
a. If the KJV-Only doctrine were true, we would expect that
quotations from the Old Testament (OT) appearing in the New
Testament (NT) would be worded exactly the same. But this is
usually not the case in the KJV. Granted, God might legitimately
inspire the NT authors to reword certain OT verses. But this
explanation does not cover all the evidence.
b. The fact is that the vast majority of OT quotations in the NT
differ at least slightly. Why would God inspire NT authors to
reword OT statements routinely if there is only one legitimate
wording for each OT verse?
c. In some cases in the NT the OT quotation is presented as what
a person in NT times actually read, or could read, in his copy of
the OT. For example, several times Jesus asked the Jews if they
had never read a particular OT text – and then quoted it in
a form that differs from the KJV (Matt. 19:4-5 [Gen. 1:27; 2:24];
Matt. 21:16 [Ps. 8:2]; Matt. 21:42 and Mark 12:10 [Ps.
118:22-23]; Matt. 22:32 and Mark 12:26 [Ex. 3:6]). If the Bible
is properly worded in only one way and any variant is a
corruption of the Bible, then Jesus was asking them if they had
read something which, according to KJV-Only reasoning, they could
not have read. Elsewhere we are told that a person read an OT
text, where the KJV of that OT text differs from what appears in
the NT quotation (Luke 4:17-19 [Isa. 61:1-2]; 10:26-28 [Deut.
6:5; Lev. 19:18]; Acts 8:32-33 [Isa. 53:7-8]). These facts prove
that the OT text which the Nazareth synagogue, Jesus himself, the
rich young ruler, and the Ethiopian ruler had differed in wording
from the OT in the KJV.
6. The KJV-Only doctrine is not the historic belief of the
Christian faith. In the history of Christianity only two
other versions of the Bible have ever been treated as the Bible,
and even in these two cases not to the exclusion of other
language versions. But those two versions were the Greek
Septuagint (OT) and the Latin Vulgate, both of which (especially
the latter) are typically rejected by KJV-Only advocates as
perversions of the Bible. The Vulgate was treated as the only
valid Bible for centuries by the Roman Catholic church in order
to maintain uniformity in Bible reading and interpretation. Yet
KJV-only advocates commonly regard the Septuagint and the Vulgate
texts as false versions or "perversions" of the Bible. To be
consistent, then, they must maintain that for over half of church
history (over a thousand years) there was no Bible available to
anyone outside a tiny number of scholars (if to anyone at all).
In Protestantism the belief that the Bible may exist in multiple
versions even in the same language has freed the Bible from the
monopolistic control of the clergy or the theologians. The
KJV-Only doctrine is a reactionary movement, limited almost
exclusively to a segment of American fundamentalists (with much
smaller followings in other English-speaking countries).
7. The KJV-Only doctrine does not fit the facts about the
transmission of the Bible.
a. According to at least some versions of the KJV-Only doctrine,
God preserved the Bible against any and all deviations, so that
the true Bible has always been the same. But there is no evidence
that this has happened. In fact the Bible and portions of it have
been freely copied, re-copied, and translated with great freedom
in the first five centuries of the church and in the last five
centuries (so far). This resulted in many variations and
deviations from the original text.
b. The copies of the first 1500 years or so of church history
were all produced by hand, and no two extant manuscripts are
completely alike. It is unrealistic to expect that before the
printing press an absolutely unchanging text would be preserved
by anyone – and the evidence from the extant manuscripts
proves that in fact it did not happen.
c. In the case of the New Testament, the distinctive Greek text
tradition on which the KJV was based, known as the Byzantine
text, does not appear to have existed in the early church. The
best evidence we have so far suggests that the Alexandrian text
tradition is the earliest. This claim is vigorously rejected by
KJV-only advocates, and the arguments pro and con are many and
the issue too complicated for most non-scholars to follow and
appreciate. However, a simple observation can here be made even
here. For the KJV-only doctrine to be correct, in every place
where the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts differ, the Byzantine
must always be right. To base one's doctrine on such an
unprovable and dubious assumption is not wise.
8. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to respect the
KJV as God's word. Many evangelical Christians greatly revere
the KJV, read it, quote from it, believe it, and seek to live by
it, who do not subscribe to the KJV-only doctrine.
9. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to express
criticisms of other translations. Many evangelicals who do
not hold to the KJV-only doctrine have specific criticisms of
other translations. For example, many evangelicals are critical
of gender-inclusive translations such as the NRSV. Many
evangelicals have pointed out weaknesses or problems in the NIV.
Sober criticism of other translations assumes a humble
perspective that recognizes that no translator or translators
have produced a perfect translation and that translators who make
mistakes are not necessarily corrupting God's word.
10. Advocacy of the KJV-only doctrine is no guarantee of
doctrinal truth or interpretive accuracy. A variety of
Christian sects of American origin embrace the KJV in more or
less exclusivistic fashion.
a. Arguably the "Ruckmanites," a fundamentalist Baptistic
movement that looks to Peter Ruckman as its primary spokesperson,
is a distinct subgroup of American fundamentalism with almost
cultish characteristics. Their basic theology seems sound enough,
but it is overlaid with such extremism and legalism in its view
of the Bible as to undermine its evangelical view of
salvation.
b. Mormonism uses the KJV as its official Bible, even though
Joseph Smith produced an "inspired" revision of the Bible (which
some Mormons also use). The Mormons have a strong commitment to
the KJV because it was the Bible of the early LDS prophets, the
Book of Mormon quotes (indeed, plagiarizes) whole chapters from
the KJV, and Mormons have found it convenient to use the KJV in
evangelizing especially in English-speaking countries.
c. Many Oneness Pentecostals hold to a form of the KJV-only
doctrine, especially on a popular level among pastors and laity.
In their case they find it convenient to stick with the KJV
because in certain places its wording is more compatible with the
way the Oneness doctrine is articulated than modern translations
(e.g., Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16). Oneness Pentecostals often object
to arguments based on the Greek or Hebrew as vain attempts to
improve on the Bible.
11. The KJV-only doctrine requires that we have some sort of
faith in the KJV translators. KJV-only advocates constantly
complain that if we don't have one sure Bible, the KJV, then we
have to trust what scholars say about the text and its
translation. But they are placing their faith solely in the KJV
translators. A genuinely Protestant approach to the Bible
requires that we not trust any one translator or translation
team. Lay Christians can compare different translations to help
get at the truth about any passage – or at least to become
aware of possible disputes over the meaning of the passage.
12. Advocates of the KJV-only doctrine all too commonly
exhibit a spiteful and disrespectful attitude toward other
Christians. Advocates of a hard-line KJV-only position
commonly label all other translations (even the NKJV)
"per-versions" of the Bible. They typically accuse anyone
defending these other translations of lying, denying God's word,
calling God a liar, and having no faith. While there are
gracious, charitable advocates of the KJV-only doctrine, in
general its advocates have earned a reputation for vicious
name-calling, condescension, and arrogance. To quote the original
1611 edition of the KJV, these people "strain out a gnat and
swallow a camel." While zealous to defend the KJV, they betray
its teachings by failing to exhibit love toward fellow believers
in Jesus Christ. All too often they imply that to be saved one
must not only believe in Christ, but must also adhere to the KJV
as the only Bible. A doctrine that fosters such bad fruit must be
bad. There is nothing wrong with loving the KJV and believing it
to be the best translation of the Bible. There is something very
wrong with condemning other Christians for not sharing that
opinion.
Bibliography 1. Fundamentalist KJV-Only (and Related)
Works
Burgon, John W. The Revision Revised. Paradise: Conservative
Classics, 1977 reprint [1883]. Fuller, Daniel O., ed. Which
Bible? Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International, 1978. Hodges,
Zane C., and A. L. Farstad, eds. The Greek New Testament
according to the Majority Text. 2d ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
1985. Pickering, W. N. The Identity of the New Testament Text.
Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977. 2. Evangelical Works Critiquing
the KJV-Only Position
Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. White, James R. The King James Only
Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Minneapolis:
Bethany House, 1995. 3. On Mormonism and the Bible
Barlow, Philip L. Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the
Latter-Day Saints in American Religion. Religion in America
series. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.
acap
AtlantaChristianApologeticsProject
P.O. Box 450068
Atlanta, GA 31145
(770) 482-ACAP
Atlanta Christian
Apologetics Project (http://www.atlantaapologist.org)
UK
Apologetics.Net would like to thank Atlanta
Christian Apologetics Project for generously allowing us to
use this article on our site.